How to Address Overlapping Rewards Cycles?
Colinwhitworth69
Member Posts: 7,470 ★★★★★
Anyone have any good ideas on how to make switching alliances easier? Currently there is always some alliance rewards at stake, be it AW, BG, AQ or Banquet. It has become difficult to recruit because active players will lose alliance rewards if they leave their current alliance, and it seems few want to sacrifice the stuff they’ve earned, rightly so.
12
Comments
I would propose lowering the minimum of wars to 3 and allow 7 days instead of the current 6 and 15 respectively. Battlegrounds should not have any restriction except switching alliances during week 4 means you get no alliance rewards. Honestly, the rank rewards for bgs with alliances aren’t great unless your near the top, and those ones won’t be changing.
It will always be an issue unless they do away with the restrictions.
Lining up bgs and AW would be terrible because during off-season there is literally nothing for end gamers to do.
AW/BG/Banquet they need to take a server snapshot and lock in people's places. What I mean is this.
Player is in an alliance. Event ends. A server snapshot is taken that shows what alliance and placement people have.
Player moves to a new alliance, but the server knows he was in X alliance at event end. Then they distribute rewards based off that snapshot.
This will help people move alliances, still get rewarded for their contributions and will help with recruitment.
With your idea, X alliance will still be rewarded as if they’re #500 instead of #400. This can work for AQ, but not BG or AW.
I agree that AW and Battlegrounds seasons at least should be syncronized. Recruiting was always hard but since the introduction of BG alli milestones it's become nearly impossible.
There was always that window where we would be able to meet and choose recruits, now that seems to have disappeared.
I thought this off season would be alright, as it was extended, but then there was gifting and once again we can't find anyone like we used to and Seasons starts tomorrow.
There is way too much happening in game now. Managing alliances is already a difficult task. Kabam needs to find a way to alleviate things for us, and in my opinion, syncronizing two most competitive modes would be the best way to go.
People can more freely move Alliances if there's a record of what Alliance they were in at event conclusion. It stops punishing players for migrating at the end of an event. If we're going to have event rewards continually delayed, Kabam needs to start considering this so players aren't held in an Alliance while they take a week or more to disperse rewards. It'll potentially delay rewards longer, but players will get the rewards they earned even if they move Alliances after an event concludes.
Yes, I know there currently is NOT a AQ season reward, that the AW season is 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off (generally) and that the BG season is 4 weeks on, 1 week off (generally). And then add on top of that, AQ is 5 days on 3 days off so always starting/stopping on different days of the week in comparison to AWs/BGs.
These 3 game modes were all developed at very different stages of the game but that doesn’t mean Kabam can’t take a look and try to align them now, which could mean some changes to their frequency, on/off cycle, etc.
To me, it just makes sense that one’s efforts on the team/alliance work towards the same goal for a season and get those team/season rewards. I think this also incentivizes you more to join and commit to a team that fits your and the alliances intended goals. Sure, things don’t work out at times (cuts & ‘trades’ made) but similar deadlines/restrictions can be in place to discourage alliance hopping etc.